Our right to arms: What's at stake this November

[Joe Demko]

That don't make no sense.

I pictured you as Pete from O Brother Where Art Thou? when I read this...

But actually it does make sense if you look at it this way: The guns we all obsess over are supposed to be for overthrowing a Tyrannical Regime®, right? History shows us that people, typically, will not act until a situation becomes intolerable. Under either Party, the situation will become intolerable; but it will become intolerable more quickly under D than R. Hence, the Inevitable Slaughter of theTyrants® and ensuing Golden Age of Freedom® will come more quickly if we punish the R's by voting for anybody else now.

 

[Biker]

Yes GoRon, punish the Pubs and *show* them that they can't take our votes for granted.
An inch or a foot, I'm still being ripped off. I'm not taking it anymore. Do the job I hired you for or you're fired.
End of story.

Biker

 

[NineseveN]

My thoughts (as posted in this thread with a slight edit for on-topicness http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=229020):


The Republicans aren't about liberty any more than the Democrats are, they just want a different piece of the People's Pie than the opposition does.


We're given a choice between one side infringing on our liberties and another side doing the same, just in different areas or ways. We get scare attempts crying about what the Democrats would do if they were in charge with all of the power the government has these days, one has to wonder if the people that make these arguments understand just who it was that gave the government that power they're so afraid of when the other side has it in the first place.

The other popular position is that we should try and influence or change one of the parties and vote for them rather than to abandon them as a whole and vote for the party that actually supports our beliefs based on each party's likelihood of winning becasue only the Repubs and the Dems have a chance at winning.

That's like telling your best friend to marry the chick that won't let him out of the house without her with him, makes him go to the church that she chooses, invades his privacy and snoops through his mail, listens to his phone calls and reads his e-mails just because she says she won't make him get rid of his guns because it's better than the bisexual chick that wants to spend all of his money while she doesn't work, won't let him hunt or hike and would make him get rid of his guns. To me, that's not a choice, that's a suicide pact with an idiot.

Me, I'll stay single as long as I have to in order to find the girl that respects the both of us enough to recognize that we're both free individuals in a partnership and values that as much as or above anything else. Fortunately enough for me, I’ve already found her, and even if she never agrees to marry me, I'd rather spend my time in a fruitless effort towards freedom than a successful endeavor of servitude.


When exercising the right to vote in this country became more about picking a winner than being active in the political process and making our voices heard, we started going downhill faster than any speedometer was capable of calculating, and the Democratic and Republican bookies are cashing in at the track and laughing all the way to the bank while we sit with our programs in hand like imbeciles with empty pockets cheering our horse on long after we’ve run out of money to make a bet.

 

[crunker]

Show the fools this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kkfmcof6SqI) and then ask them why semiautomatic, high-power, high capacity handguns should be banned to that man who was eaten by lions in front of his children.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

We keep going around this circle. I happen to sincerely believe that we're losing more rights, and faster, under this administration than we ever lost them under a Democrat, at least in my life time. The BIG exception being gun rights. I just wish I could be a single-issue voter, but I really care about things like legal protections and the 1st Amendment. Not thast I for a second believe the Democrats are all hunky-dory on those issues, but I believe their opposition to Bush will lead them to expose admin abuses and corruption. I also have spent too much time as a parent to believe that dishonesty should be rewarded.

 

[Daps]

That video really doesn't prove why we need those weapons, proves more of why you should leave mother nature alone when you're in that type of environment you become the prey.

I get the point you're trying to make but I dont think that video supports it.

As for the topic both main parties are crap. The Dems have some blow hards but I dont think they'll try anything most saw what happened from passing the AWB, it's all about staying in power and getting your slice of that pork barrel pie ummmm yummy. You'll hear some cry for AWB II but I dont think it'll fly, the they'll take your guns IMO is a scare tactic, what about the rights we're losing now? Why should one be more important that the other. Washington needs cleaned out on both sides. It's not Repub vs Dem its US(the people) vs THEM(.GOV)

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

While I would certainly agree that the Republicans haven't been very libertarian with their regard for civil rights lately, it seems that every time I wade through L&P there is someone grossly misconstruing what they did - which really isn't necessary given what they have been doing. If you have to blow your point out of proportion to make it, that should tell you something about the point you are making.

5th: Suspension of Habeus Corpus and no access to attorney, tortured or otherwise intimidated to talk in ways that can incriminate one's self.

Suspension of habeas corpus is limited to people picked up on the battlefield.

6th: Held indefinitely without trial. There goes that one.

Who? The only guy I can think of is Padilla who was held for several years before the courts finally said "Yes, you have to give him a trial." I agree it is pretty bad the court had to make that point; but are any other American citizens currently being detained without trial?

7th: No right to trial by jury if Bush or his people so decide. Military tribunal.

This only applied to aliens who are ALSO unlawful enemy combatants. Don't want to lose your right to trial by jury? All you have to do is not renounce your American citizenship and then conduct war in a manner at odds with Geneva III.

8th: Cruel and unusual punishment? Hm. Waterboarding? Wonder when they'll start doing it to American citizens, too. Or have they?

Actually they've been waterboarding guys at SERE school since I joined the military in 1993. Generally it is done when a student does something that would have gotten him killed in the real world. Is it fun? Not from what I've heard; but how cruel can it be given the fact it is done to our own guys?

The Supreme Court Justices are a crap shoot, no matter who picks them.

Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed by Reagan, and voted with the liberals more often than the conservatives.

Sandra Day O'Connor was THE swing vote on several key votes seeking to reign in the growth of the central government by giving more power to the states. She was a key vote in gun-related decisions like Printz v. United States and Lopez that overturned sections of the Brady bill AND established more power in the states. She even voted in favor of the states on Gonzales v. Raich when Scalia couldn't stomach allowing states to set their own laws regarding marijuana. To say that O'Connor voted more often with the liberals than the conservatives pretty much shows you don't follow many decisions (if any) or that the ones you do follow are limited only to abortion (which is one of the few places where O'Connor bucked the conservative wing).

After George Bush appointed Harriet Miers, I have little confidence that he is really putting much thought into his picks.

And what exactly do you know about Miers that suggests that? As much as you knew about the entire judicial career of O'Connor?

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

NineseveN, I missed your post above the first time through. The horseracing metaphor is so good, and so well written, I wish I had thought it up myself.

 

[NineseveN]

NineseveN, I missed your post above the first time through. The horseracing metaphor is so good, and so well written, I wish I had thought it up myself.

Feel free to borrow it, but I must caution you, it might make people angry when you use it in an argument like this.

I actually considered making it my signature.

 

[GoRon]

When exercising the right to vote in this country became more about picking a winner than being active in the political process and making our voices heard, we started going downhill faster than any speedometer was capable of calculating, and the Democratic and Republican bookies are cashing in at the track and laughing all the way to the bank while we sit with our programs in hand like imbeciles with empty pockets cheering our horse on long after we’ve run out of money to make a bet.

If that is what you believe the I am sorry to say you will never have any voice in our government and you will never have anyone representing you.

You are and will be constrained to the fringes of the political debate.
You will not have influence in either party.

 

[Balddragn]

When the two parties started acting more alike than different, the thought of voting for one or the other became more and more repugnant. In my view I would have to be a brainless sheep to vote for either one. I'd rather be accused of being a dreamer, and hope that others will vote because they think it a good choice and not just because they think it’s a winner.

Your vote, your choice. Spend it like a free willed intelligent person or go with the flock.

 

[Marshall]

I'll be voting Republican, easy call. I couldn't change a single mind on this forum so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[GoRon]

In my view I would have to be a brainless sheep to vote for either one.

I'm old enough now to where the sky has been falling for quite a while.

While I don't endorse every thing that is/has taken place during this administration this much I know.

Stomping your feet, taking your toys and going home doesn't get anything done.

You just won't have a seat at the party.

The Democrats have a hard and fast record of usurption of property rights, antagonism toward second amendment/self defense rights and a propensity to be paralyzed when dealing with the evil men do here and abroad.

"Punishing" the Republicans by putting the feckless Democrats in any position of power is done at great risk, in both domestic and foriegn affairs.

 

[NineseveN]

If that is what you believe the I am sorry to say you will never have any voice in our government and you will never have anyone representing you.

You are and will be constrained to the fringes of the political debate.
You will not have influence in either party.

Um, okay, the local politicos around here know me, sometimes by name, sometimes just by my face, because I contact them often enough. The Democrats, Repubs, whoever, just becasue I didn't vote for them, doesn't mean they don't represent me.

But if what you said was truly the case...if I have to choose between the straight party lines of the would-be-republican party or the liberals, why would I want either of them wholly representing me anyway since I don't agree with the majority of either party's actions or the party line?

I vote my conscience, you guys can fester over picking a winner and hopefully feel good about yourselves cause you ra-ra'd the winning team. Me, I'm glad I didn't vote for GW this last election, and I'm equally as glad that I didn't vote for Kerry either.

 

[Marshall]

Me, I'm glad I didn't vote for GW this last election, and I'm equally as glad that I didn't vote for Kerry either.

Did you vote?

 

[NineseveN]

Did I vote? A freak occurrence rendered my voting ability inoperable for the first time since I'd been of voting age. Long, stupid story that doesn't involve the law or anything like that...

I was hoping Badnarik would have gotten a larger share of the vote, and I was still a registered (R) at the time and really didn't dig into the (L) until after that election. I knew about Badnarik and I liked a lot of what he had to say, but I was still in the "a vote for anyone but a Republican is a vote for the Democrat" mindset, and it wasn't until I reflected on what GW and the (R)'s and the (D)'s were all about that I really started using my noodle instead of toeing the Republican line.

Before the incident, en route to the polls, I'd made a tough decision not to vote for GW because I didn't think either party was all that different in the grand scheme of liberty and I was afraid of what a zealous "Big Government Republican" with what I felt were honest intentions coupled with a misguided mindset could do to this country. Badnarik would have gotten my vote...which would have done absolutely nothing practical to change the landscape of that election of course, except to put my support behind the candidate that I agree with most...IMHO, the morally sound decision.

I did vote for GW in 2000 and I felt good about that vote at the time.

 

[Green Lantern]

I think Bartholomew did a very good job of putting some TRUTH to the spin "the Constitution has been gutted!"

I know that I haven't had any of my rights infringed - at the least in any way where I personally and knowingly experienced harm from - since 2000.

And I ALSO know that if the Democrats get Congress back, just glimpsing at the Original Post, that if the ones that hold the power have their way, I WILL have my rights infringed in ways I will certianly experience!

Still depending on where you live (NYC anyone?) "straight R's on EVERYTHING" is NOT the answer. Do your homework, or turn to 2A groups like NRA or GOA to see who THEY endorse!

All I can say is that when I get home from work on the 7th, I'm probably gonna "tranq" myself so that I don't wake up until after all the votes are counted!

 

[DunedinDragon]

I've seen a couple of articles recently about how the Dem's are avoiding the gun control issue like it's the plague. They realize it's a losing issue for them. That doesn't mean the party line is any different, it just means they don't want to expose that party line.

As for me, I'm not completely happy with what the republicans have done, but I am more fearful of what the Democrats might do. My vote is straight "R's", but in actuality I'm voting AGAINST the dems and the media with my vote.

The dems have done nothing but throw mud, complain, call names and gripe but have yet to expose ONE SINGLE IDEA of how they would solve the problems they are griping about. They have in effect said, "vote for us because we're not republicans." They are afraid to talk about their plans because they can't afford to alienate the far-left-wing fringe of the party by supporting gun control, or how they would handle the interrogation of war prisoners, or how they would manage the balance between intelligence gathering and the right to privacy, or how they would manage the illegal alien problem and border security. That's not leadership so my vote is to let them know that I don't vote for people simply because they gripe and complain. I vote for people that have an approach and a plan on how to make things better, and I'm not willing to trust them unless they can tell me how they intend to do it. We KNOW what the republicans will do...we have NO CLUE what the dems will do to address these issues.

They need to understand they are no longer the "voice of the people", they have become the voice of the radical left with people like Pelosi and Harry Reid. If they lose the house this time around when they've had TREMENDOUS help from the press they will have no choice but to re-evaluate their party's basic approach. They are NOT the party of JFK and FDR anymore. They are the party of Clinton, Reid and Pelosi....and that's VERY scary.

Ask yourself this. Does the quote, "ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country" sound like something a Democrat would say, or a republican would say? I'm not really voting against the Democrats as much as I am voting against the tin-foil hat wearing leftists that have taken over the party, and in effect reduced us to a single party system.

I also want to use my vote to point out what morons the press and the media are. They focus all their attention on the Foley scandal and talk about how the republicans are in trouble and don't balance that with the fact that NONE of the democratic leadership even has a platform, much less one that appeals to the vast majority of the people in this country. Hopefully by helping prove the press wrong in their projections of the dems taking over congress people will finally be able to see how absolutely non-credible they are and that they are nothing more than a propoganda machine for the radical left, Osama Bin Laden and and the rest of the criminally insane.

 

[Mayo]

Why can't you just vote AGAINST the LIBERALS?

 

[progunner1957]

Don't buy the act the Democrats are putting on!

"Punishing" the Republicans by putting the feckless Democrats in any position of power is done at great risk, in both domestic and foriegn affairs.

+ 1000!!

I've seen a couple of articles recently about how the Dem's are avoiding the gun control issue like it's the plague. They realize it's a losing issue for them. That doesn't mean the party line is any different, it just means they don't want to expose that party line.

Exactly. Has the Democratic National Party ripped the antigun/civilian disarmament plank from their platform and thrown it into a bonfire? NO they have not.

In 2004, they dressed John Kerry up like a bird hunter. That didn't work, so they changed tactics. They are not singing and dancing for civilian disarmament beore the election - so what???
That means nothing more than the fact that they learned from their past miscalculations.

What they say - or don't say - before the election means nothing once they are in power, especially with regard to our right to arms.

 

[NineseveN]

They need to understand they are no longer the "voice of the people", they have become the voice of the radical left with people like Pelosi and Harry Reid. If they lose the house this time around when they've had TREMENDOUS help from the press they will have no choice but to re-evaluate their party's basic approach.

Now that's a very good reason to vote against them...but then, how do we get the Repubs to do the same thing? Vote liberal in the next election cycle?

 

[liberalgunnut]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manedwolf
5th: Suspension of Habeus Corpus and no access to attorney, tortured or otherwise intimidated to talk in ways that can incriminate one's self.

Suspension of habeas corpus is limited to people picked up on the battlefield.

Quote:
6th: Held indefinitely without trial. There goes that one.

Who? The only guy I can think of is Padilla who was held for several years before the courts finally said "Yes, you have to give him a trial." I agree it is pretty bad the court had to make that point; but are any other American citizens currently being detained without trial?

Quote:
7th: No right to trial by jury if Bush or his people so decide. Military tribunal.

This only applied to aliens who are ALSO unlawful enemy combatants. Don't want to lose your right to trial by jury? All you have to do is not renounce your American citizenship and then conduct war in a manner at odds with Geneva III.

Of course you seemed to leave out the part that one man gets to define who is a enemy combatant/threat to America... which pretty much destorys your position. There is nothing in the act that says if the president felt that gun owners were a threat to the US he couldn't decide that they were all enemy combatants.

You actually pointed out Padilla... and then went on to say it's limited to aliens? you seem a bit confused. I saw nowhere in the Act that limits it to aliens. If I'm incorrect, I'd love for you to show me the source on that.

thanks.

 

[liberalgunnut]

Now that's a very good reason to vote against them...but then, how do we get the Repubs to do the same thing? Vote liberal in the next election cycle?

works for me.

 

[liberalgunnut]

In 2004, they dressed John Kerry up like a bird hunter.

I'd prefer to go hunting with him than Cheney...

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

That doesn't mean the party line is any different, it just means they don't want to expose that party line.

Well, that no doubt has a lot of truth. But I remember when southern Democrats began to soft-peddle their racial beliefs because it was no longer effective to appeal to racism (that perogative was taken over by the southern Republicans.) In a short period of time, the Democrats actually became the party more favorable to civil rights (e.g. Johnson). I think if the Dems continue to soft-peddle the gun control issue, eventually it willl become limited to a smaller and smaller fringe in the party and in the political landscape in general. At least that's my hope, and why I am leaning more and more to supporting Dems that come around on the issue.

Anyway, I recon this horse is about dead, flayed, and decomposed by now.